News Bush supporters uninformed?

According to a study performed by The Program on International Policy Attitudes more than half of Bush supporters STILL believe that, among other things:
1.) Iraq had WMD (or a major program) before we attacked them (72%!!! )
2.) We had proof of these WMD
3.) Iraq had and has verifyable ties to al Qaeda
4.) Bush administration is STILL claiming this to be true

The Bush administration and FOX News don't even claim these things anymore.
They have been forced to acknowledge the truth, but the supporters still don't.

Furthermore, the attack of Iraq was justified because of the above "facts", and if they weren't true, then the majority of Bush supporters would not think the war was justified.
My GOD!

A quote from the article:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

They also incorrectly believe that the majority of the rest of the world's population support the war and favor Bush for re-election!

I was floored when I heard this!
What's the story?

Are they really that misinformed?
Is the Bush spin machine THAT effective?
Do they simply have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to accept the truth because they don't want to?

If people want to vote for Bush, then that's fine, it is their right, and their political ideals may simply differ from mine.
But to be voting for Bush while being THAT woefully misinformed should be a crime!
Not only is it sad that you may actually be voting for something you may not want to (since most of them base their approval of the attack on falsehoods) but the rest of us may have to end up paying the price for that ignorance.

It is a crime what the media is doing. I have lived in CA all my life (until now) and so I didn't really realize the problem most of the rest of the country has getting fairly objective news opinions. Every radio station I could find in my car, dozens and dozens of them, was utter propaganda, except for a couple that wouldn't mention anything controversial at all. The shows were like religious sermons written by a team of expert lawyers (to spin the facts) and psychologists (to know what works on people).

I listened to this programming for 3 days strait on every radio station I could find only because I thought it was educational to be exposed to it, it has changed me. For 24/7 these people are being bombarded by one side of the story, a completely dishonest side. It is just being pounded down their throats. Every little thing is spun to fit this imaginary point of view. They are told if you are a good hard working decent person these are your beliefs. These are the beliefs of everyone in your community. If you have any of X opinions you are a fraud. You have to be convicted of your beliefs (the ones we just gave you) or you are a bad person of some kind. These are overriding points on every radio station. I heard one radio say conservatives believe in God and liberals believe in nothing.. I wanted to call in but all the callers sounded like props that would fit right into the shows argument and line of reasons and at just the right times. They used the term "fact" a lot, and I right away I learned that when they would say that word that meant they were lying. The facts are we did find WMD's and Iraq did support the 911 attack etc etc.

I am simplifying here, believe me it is ALOT worse, they really do a job on these people. I don't blame these people so much for how they feel and what there opinions are after being exposed to what they are immersed in, it is very sad and very scary.

1.) Iraq had WMD (or a major program) before we attacked them (72%!!! )

You may be 'livid about this', but you are equally uninformed if you don't understand why people believe that Iraq had WMD before we went in.
In fact, I will say that those who believe Iraq DIDN'T have WMD before we went are the uninformed.

Section 3 of the Duelfer report outlines WMD found after our arrival. So, perhaps the reports questions and results aren't being portrayed accurately....perhaps it's a matter of degrees of truth...or as Kerry would put it nuance....
BTW One Raven...have you read the full 9-11 and Duelfer reports or are you just relying on others to tell you what their conclusions are?

The Duelfer Report says that there was no ACTIVE PROGRAM for manufacturing WMDs. It also claims that there is no evidence of any new WMDs (made or bought) after Desert Storm. The only WMDs found are from old stockpiles; portions hidden here or there, of the size that may be found in at least a dozen other countries.

The Duelfer Report says that there was no ACTIVE PROGRAM for manufacturing WMDs. It also claims that there is no evidence of any new WMDs (made or bought) after Desert Storm. The only WMDs found are from old stockpiles; portions hidden here or there, of the size that may be found in at least a dozen other countries.

The question is stated as such:
Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq.

Had actual weapons of mass destruction......yes or no (47% Bush supporters state yes and apparently they are correct.)

Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them..... yes or no (25% Bush supporters state yes, 18% of Kerry say yes.)

Had some limited activities that could be used to help develop weapons of mass destruction, but not an active program...yes or no (25% of Bush supporters state yes, Kerry supporters- 51% state yes)

Did not have any activities related to weapons of mass destruction..............yes or no ( Bush 2%, Kerry 22%)

The Duelfer report outlines WMD's found, as you have mentioned from old stockpiles etc...which could/would bring an affirmative answer to the first question.
The Duelfer report also outlines small scale clandistine and active programs which developed biological and chemical weapons and tested them on human subjects 'resulting in their deaths'.

Edit to add:

A portion of PIPA's summation states: Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

In regards to this portion of the study (I don't have time to go into the rest of it at this time) the summation would appear to contain at best a minimal amount of spin considering it is supposed to be a non-partisian study

What I find more shocking is that 74% of these people believe the majority of world consensus is in their favor.

From reports I've read about India, China, South-East Asia, the Middle East (except Israel) Australia and Europe, this would not seem to be the case. I have no idea what folks in South America or Africa think, but I doubt they'll swing the consensus in favor of Bush.

And also there's the survey that BobG (I think) linked to some time ago, that showed that about 40% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - I'm getting repetitive, aren't I ?

A portion of PIPA's summation states: Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

In regards to this portion of the study (I don't have time to go into the rest of it at this time) the summation would appear to contain at best a minimal amount of spin considering it is supposed to be a non-partisian study

The language is clearly biased. I'd have never thought it was a non-partisan group from the language.

What I find more shocking is that 74% of these people believe the majority of world consensus is in their favor.

From reports I've read about India, China, South-East Asia, the Middle East (except Israel) Australia and Europe, this would not seem to be the case. I have no idea what folks in South America or Africa think, but I doubt they'll swing the consensus in favor of Bush.

And also there's the survey that BobG (I think) linked to some time ago, that showed that about 40% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - I'm getting repetitive, aren't I ?

Actually, both threads refer to the same survey. It just took a little time for it to bubble up to national news.

Claiming that a few remnants of Iraq's WMD program proves the accuracy of the statement that WMD existed is quibbling. I think it's safe to say that well over 95% of their existing weapons were destroyed. There was no operational program by 2003.

The conclusion of all reports (the Intel Committee's assessment of prewar intelligence, the Duelfer Report) is that there was no operational WMD program. The Duelfer report was kind of a mixed bag, where the most accurate answer was that Iraq had no active WMD program, but it did support the idea that Iraq was prepared to resume it very quickly. The Duelfer Report did support the idea that Iraq would quickly become at least a chemical weapons threat once the sanctions were lifted, which is something for the Bush administration. And Iraq did have an active missile development program, which everyone already knew (prior to the invasion, they had to destroy some of their missiles for exceeding their allowable range). Both of those two programs served Iraq well during it's war with Iran and you could virtually guarantee that both would have received top priority in a post-sanctions Iraq.

How to deal with that prospect is certainly debatable. But it definitely was not the reason given for invasion. The survey supports the idea that Bush supporters still believe the initial reasons given for the invasion - Iraq's support for Al-Qaeda and a WMD program that posed an imminent threat.

Many of the Bush supporters I have spoken with proudly declared that they didn't watch the debate. Clearly they don't want to be bothered with the facts. What's more, have you noticed that every one of Bush's campaign slogans is a lie; an obvious misrepresentation of the truth? Of course, one has to work a little to understand this. Prayer is not enough.

It is sickening.

Vote for lies, deception, and corporate interests over the public good: Vote Bush.

it's this sort of ignorant evil of the masses that really makes me give up hope on democracy- should the human race be allowed to walk stupidly into extinction just becasue they feel they need to have a voice in government? when important decisions have to be made- you ask the experts- not the uniformed masses- we need a technocracy but no one would accept that- it's going to be dicey whether we make it or not-

if the human race dies- it will be becasue we were too gracious with our respect of the primitive and ignorant

What I find more shocking is that 74% of these people believe the majority of world consensus is in their favor.

From reports I've read about India, China, South-East Asia, the Middle East (except Israel) Australia and Europe, this would not seem to be the case. I have no idea what folks in South America or Africa think, but I doubt they'll swing the consensus in favor of Bush.

And also there's the survey that BobG (I think) linked to some time ago, that showed that about 40% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - I'm getting repetitive, aren't I ?

I am from argentina... before and after the war we had lot's of demostrations against it.. in us an british embasys, we burned american flags also...

I'm not sure if the supporters of one camp are more uninformed or deluded than the supporters of the other camp, but this whole business of propaganda, of manipulating public opinion, is a fascinating one. You need to learn about a man called Edward Bernays, an American, who is regarded as the father of public relations. Do a Google and/or Amazon search and see what you come up with.

Both sides are horrible liars. What's worse is that we don't have a reaonably effective "defunking machine" that people can rely on.

Logic and careful analysis, not to mention a large amount of research are the best options we have. I've come to trust factcheck.org quite a bit. They seem quite fair in their assessments, sticking heavily to facts and explaining themselves in great detail.

From the quiz in question, I like the use of wording:

"Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization?"

The true answer to this is: has not.

However, there has been some evidence that at least suggests Iraq was being used by al-Qaeda as a training grounds and a resource. Their was also a roster somewhere showing known al-Qaeda members had received training under Iraq's military in comb at techniques and biological and chemical warfare. This is a link between Iraq & al-Qaeda. The question is did Iraq know they were aiding al-Qaeda.

Many of the questions work out this way. If you don't carefully analyze the question, you could mis-represent what they are asking. Saddam-al-Qaeda connection no, Iraq-al-Qaeda connection yes.

You may be 'livid about this', but you are equally uninformed if you don't understand why people believe that Iraq had WMD before we went in.
In fact, I will say that those who believe Iraq DIDN'T have WMD before we went are the uninformed.

The point is that they STILL believe that they had them before we went in, not they DID believe.

Besides I DIDN'T believe it in the first place because no one came forward with any proof at all of it.
It is really beside the point what they believed BEFORE, the point is what has been admitted to by the Bush adminitration NOW.

Besides I DIDN'T believe it in the first place because no one came forward with any proof at all of it.

Just because I can't stand this argument:

phatmonky said:

Timeline:
We give Saddam weapons.
Saddam invades Kuwait
UN retaliates
Armistace signed on the condition of disarming
UN weapons instpectors destory tons of weapons (long range missiles etc.)
Saddam's son in law escapes to Jordan, tells on Saddam's secret weapons stash
Saddam confronted, admits to anthrax, VX, etc. stockpiles (yes, more than we ever gave him, and substances he was not given). Says he will destroy them all.
Saddam lures son in law back to Iraq, has him executed.

Time passes, no one does anything.

Un presses saddam on WMD. Saddam says he destroyed them. Blix says soil samples show that the admitted amounts weren't destroyed at that spot. There are unanswered questions still.

Saddam hasn't cooperated, we go to war per the armistace, and subsequent resolutions.

HINT: Inspections are done to INSPECT, not search every grain of sand in Iraq. The burden of proof laid on Saddam. This is a tangent, but you have to have a complete lack of knowledge on Iraqi/US history for the last 10 years to think there were none " in the first place because no one came forward with any proof at all of it"